Even appreciating the objections vis. homosexuals impeding the ability of combat troops to do their jobs, I can't see how, in actual combat, warriors could possibly think about sex.  Under fire, America's fighting men and women have demonstrated a remarkable comradely and culture of inter-reliance; they can depend on each other to do what needs to be done.  As long as homosexual recruits fall in with this way of operating (and I truly can't see any reason why not), it's impossible to find any valid reason to not allow more willing Americans to serve their country. 

Even behind the lines, our military men and women certainly appreciate that everything they do affects the lives of the soldiers at the front; certainly our recruiters place significant value on the capacity of a recruit to understand the gravity of his or her duty.  I'm confident that recruitment personnel are more than capable of sniffing out this quality, regardless of gender or sexual preference.

Hanukkah is an interesting holiday; I don't mean to say that it's insignificant, but it in no way holds the same theological importance to Judaism as Christmas does to Christianity.  I remember, in elementary school, asking friends if they "celebrated Christmas or Hanukkah"--this seemed to be the best way to discern between the Christians and Jews amongst my classmates.  I've since learned that Hanukkah not only is Hanukkah not a scripturaly mandated holiday, it isn't even, technically speaking, a holiday at all.  It apparently is one of the lesser "festivals" which have been added to the Jewish calendar over the yeas.

It's my belief that the Jewish community, my family guilty as much as any else, has built up Hanukkah as an answer to Christmas.  And so while the story is certainly inspiring, it's been perverted in a way, a consequence perhaps of a sense of being left out during the holiday season.  Ultimately, I'm not sure if Hanukkah has any greater lesson or purpose beyond remembering the Maccabee-led resistance.

The founders went further than just curbing negative tendencies; the reason that checks and balances actually work is the self-interested nature of representatives motives them to actively check others. The brilliance isn't in curbing; it's in designing a system that makes lemonade out of the proverbial lemon.

The issue at hand is that government is inherently a compromise; man gives up some of his freedom to guarantee the rest. The essential nature of compromises is that nobody is ever completely satisfied.

But more on topic: I would love a government of reluctant Washingtons as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, it is rare that the type of person possessing the profound abilities requisite of the Presidency is not also the type actively seek a challenge.

We have to accept that the members of our government, regardless of their politics, will by-and-large seek to expand their own power. They may have every altruistic intention of selflessness and a desire to do good, yet it naturally follows that they will look to augment their ability to carry out this good. As Madison argued in Federalist 51, we must accept our leadership's motives, and embrace a structure of government which bends these forces to the benefit of the common liberty. Namely, the checks-and-balances structure of our Constitutional government.

There's no question that DC overstepped its bounds, but maybe its worthwhile to pick apart the process?

The media exploded within the past few months with news of the drinks. Most of the coverage I saw was alarmist and shallow--this goes for both the completely unnecessary front-page coverage in the NY Times as well as the job Fox did "looking out for our kids." I first saw Sparks, another malt-alcohol energy drink, at a local store around three years ago; the beverage hit the US market as early as 2002. Given how long these things had existed with little to no controversy, I think it's fair to say that the whole to-do originates in media contrivance--a scare sells papers.

Once American parents were sufficiently convinced that the beverages would single-handedly tear apart society, my guess is that one of two things happened:

1. The administration felt compelled to act, lest it lose the support of the electorate
2. The administration saw an opportunity to curry favor, and skewered FourLoko

Neither possibility justifies the outcome, but at the very least it's an example of how things seem to happen all-too-often these days.

The purpose of a public library is to increase public access to the written word. The purpose of a school library is to further the educational mission of the school.

A public library should strive to expand its collection based on what is culturally and intellectually relevant; if something is controversial, it ought to be available for public study. A school library should strive to build a collection consistent with the school's curriculum.

However, neither a public nor a school library should determine what is appropriate for children; this is a parent's job. While it is true that a parent may not be able to supervise what a child borrows from a school library, if a parent has a concern, it should with whoever sets curriculum. It is reasonable for a school to control what is available to pupils, so long as the decision is consistent with its principles.

A public library is different. A parent may reasonably be expected to accompany his or her children to the library; it's the parent's job to do be involved this way. As such, there is no justification whatsoever for limiting what is available at a public library.

I agree, but at the same time, I defy you to name an American President of the past century who hasn't wanted it.

We have to accept that the members of our government, regardless of their politics, will by-and-large seek to expand their own power. They may have every altruistic intention of selflessness and a desire to do good, yet it naturally follows that they will look to augment their ability to carry out this good. As Madison argued in Federalist 51, we must accept our leadership's motives, and embrace a structure of government which bends these forces to the benefit of the common liberty. Namely, our Constitutional government.

This is not to say that Sarah would or would not necessarily make a good President. I merely believe that political ambition by no means disqualifies a candidate. I wish we could have a government of selfless Washingtons; unfortunately, it is rare that the type of person possessing the profound abilities requisite of the Presidency does not also actively seek a challenge.